{ "id": 3508150, "name": "WILLIE JONES, Adm'r of the Estate of Colleen Jones, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Department of Human Rights", "decision_date": "1987-10-19", "docket_number": "No. 2-87-0045", "first_page": "702", "last_page": "706", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "162 Ill. App. 3d 702" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "400 N.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 3d 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3235760 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/80/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 N.E.2d 231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2965197 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/40/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 N.E.2d 1160", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1162" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2991333 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/75/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 N.E.2d 1045", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 1031", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3632515 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1033" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/125/1031-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 N.E.2d 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 2d 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3091554 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111-12" }, { "page": "111-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/91/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 8611, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.440100576570428e-08, "percentile": 0.4440150757824105 }, "sha256": "74f99239dd2ada0ebdcb6222eb4626237a23b76330d5d6779c1ed8655706b7c6", "simhash": "1:61b970c7ca42d400", "word_count": 1403 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:31.562358+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WILLIE JONES, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Colleen Jones, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE DUNN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn January 16, 1986, the Illinois Department of Human Rights filed a complaint on behalf of Colleen Jones, alleging a civil rights violation on the part of her former employer, respondent, Johnson Outboards. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution by a three-member panel of the Illinois Human Rights Commission on September 29, 1986, pursuant to the recommendation of an administrative law judge. On appeal, Willie Jones, the administrator of claimant\u2019s estate, asserts that the Commission erred by denying his petition to reinstate the complaint and vacate its dismissal order.\nThe complaint alleged that respondent unlawfully discriminated against complainant by giving a position as a receiving clerk to another woman in December 1983, when complainant should have been appointed to the position according to company seniority policy. At the time, complainant was on a medical leave of absence due to a chronic back ailment and had requested a job within her medical restrictions. According to the complaint, respondent failed to appoint complainant to this position because of her race and physical handicap (the back ailment), in violation of section 2 \u2014 102(A) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 2 \u2014 102(A)), which forbids such discrimination in hiring or renewal of employment.\nThe matter was originally set for hearing on March 18, 1986, but was continued twice at respondents\u2019 request. Complainant\u2019s attorneys were granted leave to withdraw at the May 12, 1986, hearing, after one of them advised the administrative law judge (ALJ) that they could no longer adequately represent complainant. The ALJ set the matter for a status hearing on June 2, 1986, and stated that either complainant or her new attorney should be present. No one appeared on complainant\u2019s behalf at the June 2, 1986, status hearing. As a result, the ALJ sent a recommended order to the Commission dismissing the case with prejudice for want of prosecution. Although complainant did not file any exceptions to the recommended order pursuant to section 8 \u2014 107(A) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 8 \u2014 107(A), a three-member panel of the Commission reviewed the order pursuant to section 8 \u2014 107(E) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 8 \u2014 107(E)) and adopted it on September 29, 1986.\nOn October 15, 1986, Willie Jones, complainant\u2019s husband and the administrator of her estate, filed a petition to reinstate the complaint with the Commission. The petition stated that complainant died on August 1, 1986, as a result of metastatic oat cell carcinoma of the lung and was physically unable to attend the June 2, 1986, hearing because of her illness. The petition further stated that complainant\u2019s daughters arranged to have an attorney attend the status hearing, but the attorney failed to appear and later informed them that he would be unable to take the case. These allegations were supported by the affidavits of one of complainant\u2019s daughters, Sheryl Jones, and of complainant\u2019s husband, Willie Jones. The same three-member panel of the Commission that dismissed the case for want of prosecution denied the petition on December 22,1986. This appeal followed.\nOrdinarily, an order dismissing a case for want of prosecution or denying a motion to vacate such a dismissal is not considered final and appealable. (Flores v. Dugan (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 108, 111-12, 435 N.E.2d 480). This is because section 13 \u2014 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 13 \u2014 217) gives parties the right to refile actions dismissed for want of prosecution within one year of the dismissal. (Flores v. Dugan (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 108, 111-14, 435 N.E.2d 480). This saving provision is inapplicable in the instant case, however, because the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to administrative proceedings. (Desai v. Metropolitan Sanitary District (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 1031, 1033, 466 N.E.2d 1045.) Since the September 29, 1986, order states that the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution with prejudice, the order denying the petition to vacate said dismissal is final and appealable.\nIt is the obligation of the reviewing court to take notice of matters which go to the jurisdiction of the circuit court or administrative agency. (Eastern v. Canty (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 566, 570, 389 N.E.2d 1160, 1162.) Accordingly, we must first consider an issue raised by neither of the parties: whether the December 22, 1986, order denying the petition to reinstate is void because it was entered by a three-member panel rather than the full Commission. The only mechanism provided under the Act for reconsideration of a final order by the Commission is the rehearing procedure set forth in section 8 \u2014 107(F) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 8 \u2014 107(F)). This provision states as follows:\n\u201c(1) Within 30 days after service of the Commission\u2019s order, a party may file an application for rehearing before the full Commission. The application shall be served on all other parties. The Commission shall have discretion to order a response to the application.\n(2) Applications for rehearing shall be viewed with disfavor, and may be granted, by vote of four Commission members, only upon a clear demonstration that a matter raises legal issues of significant impact or that three-member panel decisions are in conflict.\n(3) When an application for rehearing is granted, the original order shall be nullified and oral argument before the full Commission shall be scheduled. The Commission may request the parties to file any additional arguments it deems necessary.\u201d\nThe petition filed by complainant\u2019s administrator was timely filed under this provision. Although this petition was not specifically labelled as an application for rehearing, we shall construe it as such, since it is clear from the petition that complainant\u2019s administrator sought to have the dismissal order reconsidered and vacated by the Commission and this could only be accomplished by means of the rehearing procedure set forth in section 8 \u2014 107(F) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 8-107(F)).\nIt is clear from the language of section 8 \u2014 107(F)(3) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 8 \u2014 107(F)(3)) that if a rehearing is granted, the case must be reconsidered by the full Commission. It is equally clear from a reading of sections 8 \u2014 107(F)(1) and (2) that the determination of whether to grant a rehearing must also be made by the full Commission. Section 8 \u2014 107(F)(1) refers to \u201can application for rehearing before the full Commission,\u201d and section 8 \u2014 107(F)(2) states that such applications are granted \u201cby vote of four Commission members.\u201d The legislature could not have intended to permit applications for rehearing to be considered by three-member panels when it required the approval of four Commission members to grant such applications.\nA reviewing court will not presume that an administrative agency had jurisdiction to enter a finding or order. (Kahn v. Civil Service Comm\u2019n (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 615, 617, 352 N.E.2d 231.) An order entered by an administrative agency is not valid if the agency does not follow the statutory procedures established by the legislature. (Ragano v. Illinois Civil Service Comm\u2019n (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 523, 527, 400 N.E.2d 97.) In the instant matter, the Commission failed to follow the procedure established by the legislature in section 8 \u2014 107(F) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 8 \u2014 107(F)) for consideration of applications for rehearing, since the petition was considered and denied by a three-member panel, rather than the full Commission. Accordingly, the order entered on December 22, 1986, denying the petition is void and is hereby vacated. This matter is remanded to the Illinois Human Rights Commission for consideration of the petition by the full Commission.\nVacated and remanded with directions.\nWOODWARD and UNVERZAGT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE DUNN" } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Douglas Grimes, of Waukegan, for petitioner.", "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jill Deutsch, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent Human Rights Commission.", "Michael Cleveland and Eileen P. Tierney, both of Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, of Chicago, for respondent Johnson Outboards." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WILLIE JONES, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Colleen Jones, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents-Appellees.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201487\u20140045\nOpinion filed October 19, 1987.\nRehearing denied December 16, 1987.\nG. Douglas Grimes, of Waukegan, for petitioner.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jill Deutsch, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent Human Rights Commission.\nMichael Cleveland and Eileen P. Tierney, both of Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, of Chicago, for respondent Johnson Outboards." }, "file_name": "0702-01", "first_page_order": 724, "last_page_order": 728 }